NLRB Judge: Hospital Lawfully Fired Steward Who Skipped Meeting

Your daily brief on leadership and business

An Indiana hospital did not violate federal labor law when it fired a union steward for insubordination, a judge of the National Labor Relations Board held on Monday. The ruling went in favor of The Methodist Hospitals, Inc.

The steward also worked as a health unit partner. She refused to meet her supervisor after complaints about her job performance and her dealings with co-workers. The judge held that in doing so she was not engaged in protected, concerted or union activity.

The 10-day argument

The steward pointed to a provision in the collective bargaining agreement. In her reading, it gave the employer 10 days to discipline employees after a complaint, and that period had run out by the time she was told to attend. The hospital's labor relations director then told the union she had been insubordinate.

The director and the supervisor met her a short time later and said they intended to discharge her. The hospital offered a last-chance agreement that would have kept her employed. She turned it down.

The NLRB's side argued that her claim about the time limit was protected activity and that the discharge was discriminatorily motivated. The judge disagreed. In the judge's reading, the provision let employees refuse an investigatory interview only if management had not told them of their right to a union steward or delegate, or if one was unavailable. The supervisor had also told her that the hospital and the union had agreed to an extension giving the hospital more time to investigate.

The judge wrote that an employee's belief that he or she is asserting a contractually bargained right is not reasonable or honest when it is shown to be knowingly false, unfounded or inapplicable.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employers may not interfere with, restrain or coerce employees exercising the right to organize or engaging in protected activities. According to the judge, that also covers an individual employee asserting a right grounded in a collective bargaining agreement. This is known as the Interboro doctrine, per the Marquette Law Review.

The judge cited the board's 2023 Intertape Polymer decision, which set the standard its general counsel must meet to show an adverse action was motivated by protected activity. Last month the board also revisited a Biden-era standard in Lion Elastomers, on lawful action against an employee whose misconduct occurs during protected activity.

Source: HR Dive